2010 Film "Monsters"

[Kholi Hicks]

No offense man. But it sounds like you just saying this out of spite. Nobody use to make comments like this until affordable 35mm was available to everyone. Get over it. Shallow DOF looks really good 70% of the time... especially in character driven films.

Teapot to Kettle: You're black.

>:] I'm just ribbin' ya, though.

Monsters and Tiny Furniture: live it.

Although I fell asleep while watching MOnsters, it was one of the huge moments--after watching the trailer--where I said "fux this, I'm going to shoot my feature."

Six months later and wrapped, two cuts and lessons learned, going out to do another one beginning of Summer with a skeleton crew and some kids while this one goes through the VFX and Sound process.

Addicted.

 

[Bryce O]

Teapot to Kettle: You're black.

>:] I'm just ribbin' ya, though.

Monsters and Tiny Furniture: live it.

No el comprehendo... :confused1:

 

[Kholi Hicks]

No el comprehendo... :confused1:

In regards to the other thread "Movies are dead" or whatever, where you were making statements that came off as jaded and/or spiteful.

All in good fun.

 

[Bryce O]

In regards to the other thread "Movies are dead" or whatever, where you were making statements that came off as jaded and/or spiteful.

Oh yea... probably because they were jaded and spiteful. But that was about nepotism... which is the result of the cave-man like sub-conscious trickling it's way into modern society and ruining industry by allowing the dumb (or average) majority to stay in power. It's totally different... :thumbsup:

The shallow DOF argument is more like if Corvettes were all the sudden marked down to $10,000 (everybody buys one) and then people started saying things like "high-horsepower and RWD power-trains are TOTALLY overused in sports cars! They're for amateurs that have no idea what they're doing!" :rolleyes5:

 

[Darren Orange]

for some reason i posted about this movie last year.. and my thread was immediately deleted..

but for what they shot with money wise.. and run and gun style.. I really enjoyed it.

I love hearing stories about film makers who just go and do it.. little money.. no studio backing.. it gives hope

Agreed Zakaree!

The opening of the movie is misleading....more over my complaint was the poor acting not from the lead two but from everyone else in the film. Outside that it was the lack of planning seemed shot randomly and glued together, the constant jump cuts made it many times hard to keep track. Totally respect to the director and crew and cast, but A LOT could have been cut from this film.


If the effects really where a one man band, then cheers they came out great for one person to do all of that work lot of talent in that dude.

 

[Darren Orange]

Oh yea... probably because they were jaded and spiteful. But that was about nepotism... which is the result of the cave-man like sub-conscious trickling it's way into modern society and ruining industry by allowing the dumb (or average) majority to stay in power. It's totally different... :thumbsup:

The shallow DOF argument is more like if Corvettes were all the sudden marked down to $10,000 (everybody buys one) and then people started saying things like "high-horsepower and RWD power-trains are TOTALLY overused in sports cars! They're for amateurs that have no idea what they're doing!" :rolleyes5:

Frankly, I just think if you look at the goal of a car really is to get you from point A to point B. With "what car" is a mater of choice and money. The better driver will always beat the crappy one with the faster car (almost always).

 

[Kalani Prince]

Wow, the EX3 looked pretty good on my end. Just shows that regarless of everything, if the story isn't there, it's over

 

[Peter Simpson]

I just have total respect for someone who can actually get himself off his ass and go and make a feature like that, and a pretty damn good one I would add given his limitations. Inspires me. He does do all the VFX himself, he taught a course on fxphd centred on a show he did for the BBC where he completed 250 fx shots in 5 months by himself on AE in his bedroom. Check it out:

http://www.fxguide.com/featured/one_man_against_attila_the_hun/

The guy has a serious amount of talent so was probably always going to make it. Which he has. Moving on to direct a big budget take on Godzilla as far as I am aware.

 

[Michael Millichamp]

Thanks for that post Peter!

This guy is seriously dedicated which is so awesome. I just went out and bought Monsters for 13.99 at Hastings used on Blu Ray. Very worth it.

 

[Mark Collins]

No offense man. But it sounds like you just saying this out of spite. Nobody use to make comments like this until affordable 35mm was available to everyone. Get over it. Shallow DOF looks really good 70% of the time... especially in character driven films. As long as DOF is used consistently during a film I don't ever see a problem with too much or too little. If half the film was shot with the EX3's native 1/2" format and then the other half was random 35mm wide-open shots, then yea, it would see your point. But there is nothing inherently wrong with consistently shallow shots.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not saying this out of spite. I don't have a problem with using shallow depth of field as a storytelling device at all. Where I do take issue is when the DOF seems like it's sitting at about an inch for the entire film for no discernible reason. On a small screen, not really a problem. Put it on a big screen, and your eyes start to feel the strain from overuse of selective focus.

 

[Eren Ozkural]

Where I do take issue is when the DOF seems like it's sitting at about an inch for the entire film for no discernible reason. On a small screen, not really a problem. Put it on a big screen, and your eyes start to feel the strain from overuse of selective focus.

Just re watching C3TK for the thousandth time on Blu Ray.Spielberg/Vilmos really are the masters of shooting/blocking family scenes. A lot of long takes and deep focus. They use diopters to compensate for shallow depth of field in some of the closeups as well.

Nothing wrong with shallow depth of field whatsoever, it's just a matter of "horses for courses". The only time it does bug me is when I've watched short after music video after micro budget feature trailer...and they all look like Phillip Bloom test videos.

 

[Justin Chin]

Contrary to popular belief, I am not saying this out of spite. I don't have a problem with using shallow depth of field as a storytelling device at all. Where I do take issue is when the DOF seems like it's sitting at about an inch for the entire film for no discernible reason. On a small screen, not really a problem. Put it on a big screen, and your eyes start to feel the strain from overuse of selective focus.

Completely agree. I saw Monsters on the small screen and it worked in that format. Almost ten years ago I provided a mini35 setup for a feature (and I gaffed it) where we decided to shoot t1.4 - t2.2. It was beautiful. But when it was projected on a 40 foot screen it looked way too dreamy for my taste. The director loved it. Interiors worked better of course, but for long exteriors with a 35mm and 50mm it can be like your looking through colorful mud, especially if you're shooting your subjects wide. Having watched the same film on Netflix recently, I can say that plenty of the exteriors looked to shallow for a 42 inch screen as well.

That was a lessoned I learned very early on.

 

[Tim Hole]

He's a nice friendly humble chap, who got tired of doing effects on other peoples films and decided to go out and shoot his own film. The smart way.

Did a damn fine job. The effects were pretty much dead on most of the time, some of the focus was a little off at times but always forgiveable (especially given the nature and the format he was using).

I loved it for what it truly was, simplistic as the story was it had a nice soul to it.

Apparently he's up for helming the new Godzilla.